Posts Tagged ‘Pennsylvania’

I had never thought about this…
A blogger added up the deer license salesin just a handful of statesand arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 huntersthis season in the state of Wisconsin.

Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months,Wisconsin‘s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran.More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state,Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters,all of whom have now returned home safely.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginiaand it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.

It’s millions more.
The point?

America will forever be safefrom foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting.…it’s not just a way to fill the freezer…

It’s a matter of national security.
That’s why all enemies,foreign and domestic,want to see us disarmed. Food for thought,when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true,so if we disregard some assumptionsthat hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers,the question would still remain…what army of 2 millionwould want to face30, 40, or 50 million armed citizens.(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)For the sake of our freedom,don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns. We need to protect our second Amendment rights at all costs!

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305Washington, DC Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch’s complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…” The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also “under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.” Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a “federal regulator,” and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.” Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn’t until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: “Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG’s impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned ‘full details’ of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG.” Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed “household help” ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington” list.

Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won’t be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton’s scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder’s former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder’s controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder’s politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama’s then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named “Senate Candidate A” in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama’s seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. According to Reuters: “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich — later charged with trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat — at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor’s aides about his desire to be appointed.” Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.

President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House.The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade “artists” to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of “czars” in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President’s bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control — through fiat and threats — large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: “The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors — this is Obama’s “ethics” record — and we haven’t even gotten through the first year of his presidency.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2009 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA’s use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman’s largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks — tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA’s offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, “Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills.” When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, “cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file.” The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha’s nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: “Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military.”

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly “forget” to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making “campaign contributions” to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: “The reigning member of Congress’ top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles… Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.” Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

JUDICIAL WATCH ANNOUNCES LIST OF WASHINGTON ‘S “TEN MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS” FOR 2009.- GUESS WHO MADE THE LIST?
THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT PLEASED.

A TSA worker in Miami was arrested for aggravated battery after police say he attacked a colleague who’d made fun of his small genitalia after he walked through one of the new high-tech security scanners during a recent training session.

Rolando Negrin, 44, was busted for assault after things got ugly at Miami International Airport between Negrin and some of his fellow Transportation Security Administration workers on Tuesday.

Sources say Negrin stepped into the machine during the training session and became embarrassed and angry when a supervisor started cracking jokes about his manhood, made visible by the new machine.

This is not the first time a government-issue airport security guard has taken advantage of the opportunities afforded by these scanners for his own amusement. Back in March, according to Britain’s Independent, a male worker at London’s Heathrow Airport allegedly ogled the images of a female colleague as she passed through a full-body scanner and then made lewd comments to her.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee was even more insensitive than the TSA, dismissing privacy concerns altogether: “Air passengers already tolerate a large invasion of their privacy and we do not feel that full body scanners add greatly to this situation. Privacy concerns should not prevent the deployment of scanners.”

The Miami incident also demonstrates the attitudes held by our so-called public servants in the TSA:

According to the police report, Negron [sic] confronted one of his co-workers in an employee parking lot, where he hit him with a police baton on the arm and back.

“[Negrin] then told victim to kneel down and say ‘your [sic] sorry,’” the report reads. “Victim stated he was in fear and complied with [Negrin].”

If government security workers will abuse their power to look at people’s naked bodies — a power they should not have in the first place — or beat and demand total submission from those who cross them, and will do this to their own colleagues, who at least can fight back since the government is on their side, how much more likely are they to treat civilians to similar or even worse abuses?

Michael Tennant is a software developer and freelance writer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Arizona Enacts “Constitutional Carry” For Firearms

“Freedom To Carry” may replace so-called “Right To Carry” nationally

PHOENIX — With governor Jan Brewer’s signature on the new “Constitutional Carry” firearm law today, Arizona becomes a beacon state for the nation on the gun-rights issue.

Arizonans, who have been free to carry firearms openly since statehood in 1912, will now be free to carry discreetly as well, without permits or red tape. Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry.

Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of “blood in the streets” preceded those new laws, but proved false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as “Freedom To Carry,” appears at the end of this article.

Arizona’s extremely strict laws on criminal misuse of firearms are unaffected by the new public freedoms, although a penalty for criminals got tougher. New language now makes concealed carry in the commission of a serious crime a felony. This led to support of the bill from police around the state. Formerly, that offense was a misdemeanor.

The intrusive government “permit” system in Arizona, introduced in 1994 with paperwork, approvals, fingerprinting, criminal-database listings, required classes, two mandatory tests, taxation and expiration dates to exercise “rights” is still available, but is now optional. Enormous police resources that could be going directly toward reducing crime have instead been diverted by the program into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent. About 3% of the public have signed up for the plastic-coated permission slips, though an estimated 50% of the state’s population keeps and bears arms. Official sources acknowledge they get millions of dollars per year from the permit taxes called “fees.”

“This new law brings rights restoration for the public, and an increase in freedom for law-abiding people,” said Dave Kopp, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League that requested and promoted the new law. “The people have the same right to bear arms discreetly that they have to bear arms openly, we are simply correcting statute to reflect that. If your jacket accidentally covers your sidearm, that no longer exposes you to criminal penalties.” A woman will be able to put a handgun in her handbag, go about her business, and not be subject to arrest.

The key changes in the law were made by repealing the infringing language in A.R.S. §13-3102, not by enacting new rules. A number of other changes were made in SB 1108, the bill that carried the Constitutional Carry law, and these will be described in plain English and posted by gunlaws.com next week. The new law will become effective 90 days after the legislature closes, or approximately in July.

“Opportunities for firearms training and gun safety can increase tremendously with this new law”, said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, the book that describes the state’s gun laws in plain English. “Instead of focusing on a tiny percentage of the market willing to submit to the permit system, smart trainers can now offer Freedom To Carry classes to the general public. We’re anticipating Family Days At The Range and Constitutional Carry classes to spring up statewide,” he said. Removal of the $60 tax for the permit represents a significant discount, he notes.

“We sold The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide by the truckload for five years before there was any CCW law, and expect to do the same now, though permit holders did become and will remain a segment of our business,” Korwin said. The Guide is now in its 24th edition, and a free update will be released shortly. The book’s publisher, Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. http://www.gunlaws.com

The permission-slip system is unaffected and offers some advantages to citizens. Other states recognize the Arizona permit under “reciprocity,” which allows permit holders to carry firearms when in those states (currently 23 according to the Dept. of Public Safety).

In addition, since permittees are constantly monitored through the criminal databases DPS registers them in, they can shop at retail for firearms without undergoing separate FBI background checks each time they make a purchase. Also, some people just get a sense of security by having a plastic government “authorization” card in their wallets, and they enjoy showing it to friends.

Another CCW-permit benefit is the ability to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant itself doesn’t ban possession and the person doesn’t drink while there. Whether those various denials of rights will be eliminated in future legislation, making the general public equal to permission-slip holders, was unknown at press time.

Previously only people with government-permission cards in their possession could bear arms in certain parks. That ban was eliminated by a separate bill this year, which now makes permit holders and the general public equal.

According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven false and dispelled as hoplophobic fantasies. Statistics have shown that crime uniformly drops when states reduce infringements on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. “Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed,” according to the California-based civil rights group, crpa.org.

Sales of small easily carried sidearms and accessories are expected to increase with passage of the new law.

—

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY

Q: Why is the CCW permit being eliminated?

A: The CCW permit is not being eliminated — that appears to have been misinformation designed to scuttle the bill. The permit system remains completely unaffected by Freedom To Carry. The permit, its advantages, the training, reciprocity schemes, the classes, fees and taxes are unchanged. That all remains voluntary as it always has been. Anyone who meets that law’s requirements can apply. Shame on the “news” media that has repeatedly said otherwise.

Q: What’s the difference between Constitutional Carry and Freedom To Carry?

A: There’s no difference, they’re just two names for the same thing. Constitutional Carry, the more formal term, comes from following the Arizona Constitution’s provision that “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired…”. Freedom To Carry (no government interference with the right to arms) refers to the next step after so-called Right To Carry (massive government interference with the right to arms).

Q: If people can just carry guns, won’t crime and gun problems skyrocket?

A: Half of Arizonans keep and bear arms now, without any of the CCW red tape and government supervision, and without any “skyrocketing” problems. Removing the requirement to only carry openly doesn’t change who people are or how they act, it just restores their rights. Restoration of rights and becoming mentally unhinged are not related — but the same arguments have been made everywhere CCW programs passed.

It’s commonly recognized that some folks, especially people who lean left politically, do seem to equate discreetly bearing arms and becoming unglued. Decades of experience however provide no evidence of any such behavior. Those concerns have been repeatedly proven false and often turn out to be irrational fear mongering. Government permission slips for the exercise of rights have not turned people into homicidal maniacs. Restoring the right to discreetly bear arms will not change people into something they are not, and brings the state into proper compliance with its Constitution.

Q: Can anyone carry a gun?

A: Anyone who could legally carry a gun previously can legally carry under this law, no more, no less. “Prohibited possessors” — criminals, illegal aliens and others forbidden to carry arms remain banned as always. The main change is that now a woman can put a handgun in her handbag without being subject to arrest for carrying discreetly without a government permission slip (and a man has equal right to carry a gun in any discreet manner — under a sport coat or shirt, in a pocket or pants holster, fanny pack, attaché case, etc.)

Q: Training is a good thing, why was it eliminated?

A: Training is indeed a good thing and it is noteliminated. Anyone can and should take as much training as they want, which is voluntary. What has changed is that you are no longer forced to take government-mandated classes, registration and taxes before you can exercise your right to carry discreetly. This is the same formula working in Arizona since statehood for open carry (which includes concealed carry in your home, business, land, vehicle (with some minor conditions), and in a visible scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons, or in luggage. Now that the half of the public that bears arms can do so discreetly, many experts expect statewide gun training to flourish.

Q: Won’t people shoot each other if they’re not required to take the training?

A: Twelve states currently issue CCW permits without a training requirement and they’re doing just fine. Half of Arizonans exercise their right to arms without government-demanded training and they’re doing just fine. The idea that you’re only safe if government requires training is statist, foolish and incorrect. That said, responsible people should get education and training for firearms—and swimming, machine tools, medical care, raising children, being married, owning a home, preparing food, writing articles, etc., without government mandates.

If government could require training for everything that has risk, your freedom would be evaporated and your government would be out of line. Government has no legitimate delegated authority in this country to be your nanny like that, or to require anything beyond the specific, limited delegated powers given to it in the Constitution and subsequent valid legislation. The fact that government has in many cases abandoned those constraints is part of why the Tea Party movement has gained such ground and, in some cases, driven the public out into the streets with pitchforks (figuratively).

Currently, 11 states issue carry permits without training and they’re fine (AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, MD, MS, NH, PA, SD, WA). Because Arizona recognizes all other permits, many of our snowbirds have been carrying under those permits, without problems.

Q: Why are children of any age going to be allowed to carry guns to school?

A: That is total nonsense. No such thing occurs. The bill has no effect on children. That appears to be part of a misinformation campaign designed to scuttle the bill. There is no change as to who has the right to keep and bear arms. School grounds are unaffected by the law. That question is typical of similar lies and disinformation used to defeat and mislead the public about many good bills that seek to restore our civil rights. It’s almost as bad as the lies told about blacks during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Almost.

Q: Will other states imitate Arizona and enact Constitutional Carry?

A: Many people hope so, and it has the backing of the gun-rights groups.

AFTERWORD: INSIDER INFORMATION:

There is one reason and one reason only why this got done —
The Arizona Citizens Defense League.

That small handful of guys running this group, the two full-time volunteer lobbyists Dave Kopp and John Wentling, and the thousands of members who supported the effort with their tiny membership dues are exactly and precisely why our rights have expanded.

It was a deliberate, conscientious, focused and tireless effort from what must be a candidate for the best pro-rights organization in the nation. Get your friends to join, send a donation or buy a t-shirt or hat, attend the meetings, and in your little way, make a difference and preserve our rights. http://www.azcdl.org

One other tidbit — the NRA was rightfully nervous about this whole Freedom To Carry, permitless, no training, no red tape expansion of our rights. They dragged their feet at first, that’s putting it mildly, and I can’t say I blame them. An awful lot was on the line.

They wanted to be prudent. Limit exposure and risk. They have all their trainers to think about and that revenue stream. The chance of falling flat on your face in total embarrassment is a serious concern. The ease with which the antis might cast us as dangerous gun-toting (their media’s favorite slur) nuts is a real issue.

I personally debated hard with some of the top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board. Some gun owners like to pick on the NRA, but the NRA is going to be at the forefront of this battle. The Constitutional Carry issue does make sense, for them and for us. It will be a winner in some states, maybe yours, and does advance everything for which NRA members stand.

Yes, some of those members, steeped in darkness, or hooked on the government-permit feed trough, believe that red-tapeless carry is a bad idea. They crave government supervision. They want that permission slip in their wallet. They’ll learn, and come around. And continue to get fine training from NRA certified and other trainers because it’s the right thing to do, not because the government commands it. Appleseed is doing a phenomenal job in the training arena too, check them out while you’re at it. http://www.appleseedinfo.org

—

P.S. ORAL ARGUMENT ANALYZED

I have finally completed the long-awaited analysis of the oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban case. Both attorneys took a whupping, but I think our rights came out on top. Justices showed their true colors (like Breyer comparing free speech to death by gun). It’s fascinating if you’re into this sort of thing, and way easier than plodding through the transcripts. Sorry it took so long.http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_Orals.htm

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran.

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little.”
–Edmund Burke

Note to my regular readers:

It’s pretty typical to frame news like this by saying: “Arizonans are now allowed to carry firearms discreetly without a permit” but that’s just not right. That implies someone or something has legitimate authority to “allow” you to exercise your rights. You should start watching that deceptive word “allow” very carefully.

This press release is carefully framed to say: “Arizonans are now free to carry firearms discreetly without a permit,” because this is the American truth of the matter. Also note the use of “discreetly,” which is a civilized norm, instead of the media’s preferred “concealed,” which implies you’re doing something wrong and have something to hide. For more on good word usage in the protection of freedom, see my Politically Corrected Glossary, http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm.]

Arizonans have posted valuable observations on the bill; unfortunately I didn’t preserve attribution in all cases:

And, on that note, I will chime in. 12 states have no training requirements for CCW permits [he includes NY, which is true in some counties]. Two of those are Indiana and Pennsylvania which have issued about 1,000,000 permits, compared to Arizona’s miniscule 150,000. A few years back, NRA supplied me with their permit holder misuse statistics and they were lower (yes, lower) than Arizona’s. Imagine that. Since Arizona recognizes all permits from all states, that means that many of our yearly snowbirds are legally carrying concealed weapons from states that don’t require training.

—

Very well said. If anyone thinks the minimum training received during a CCW class sends the student out prepared to deal with the responsibility associated with carrying or for that matter owning a firearm. They are sadly mistaken. There are some CCW holders who have never fired their firearm since the class. Yet there are non-permittees that shoot weekly. You can’t legislate common sense or morals. It’s all about the freedom to choose to do the right thing. Don’t get me wrong — all gun owners should train and practice regularly. But not because the state says they have to. -Michael B Wixom Sent from my Blackberry

—

You ask why we would not make training mandatory? My answer is that it is a choice between liberty and some (mis)perceived concept of ‘safety’ — and we all know Benjamin Franklin’s opinion on that.

‘Training’ — to whatever level or extent — should be a matter of individual accountability, not government coercion. If an individual fails to ‘understand’ his firearm, or the conditions and situations in which to deploy it, and winds up a statistic, I consider it another splash of chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool — no matter how noble the act might have been, the lack of personal responsibility is separate from the context.

On a more ‘practical’ note, what the state giveth, the state may easily taketh away — with interest. Once ‘government’ is satisfied it can mandate ‘training requirements’, what may they mandate next? Caliber? Number? Days on which one may carry? Arbitrary and capricious ‘conditions’ that must be met?

Note that I strongly advocate the individual do all in his power to obtain the best instruction and ‘training’ possible, and practice to whatever extent practical — ‘the heaviest thing about carrying a firearm is the responsibility’ — not because there is any government ‘mandate’ beyond the barely adequate 8 hours, but because I have accepted the responsibility that comes with the choice to go armed. Tangentially, the willingness of more citizens to accept the philosophy of ‘personal accountability’ is the key to restoring the republic, another of my ‘personal interests’. -Duke Schecter